Re: The buildfarm is in a pretty bad way, folks

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Magnus Hagander
Тема Re: The buildfarm is in a pretty bad way, folks
Дата
Msg-id CABUevEwvDke3eBJqsJ-CoNBvW8oPdE20WWV3MF7jeXrK7SHm_g@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: The buildfarm is in a pretty bad way, folks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: The buildfarm is in a pretty bad way, folks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-04-06 16:59:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But in particular, it's clear that partition_prune and
>> isolation/checksum_cancel are showing big problems.

> While I'm obviously also unhappy about the frantic push to push semi
> baked stuff, I'm not sure the two issues you point to above are that
> good examples of carelessness. At least the latter seems mostly a pretty
> normal portability thing around orderedness?

I'm just venting, perhaps, but if there's a good reason for that
to have been left broken for ~24 hours, I don't know what it is.
It's getting in the way of testing other recent commits.

(I'm also not real happy about the amount of time the checksum-xxx
tests consume.)

The isolation tester ones, or the regular ones? Because the regular ones finish in << 30 seconds here, just wondering if that actually counts as too time consuming in this type of tests? 

--

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: The buildfarm is in a pretty bad way, folks
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts